This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [rfa] `struct _bfd' -> `struct bfd'
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:41:19 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: [rfa] `struct _bfd' -> `struct bfd'
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> The attached renames the BFD object to `struct bfd' from `struct _bfd'.
> To ensure backward compatibility with existing code it also #defines
> _bfd -> bfd.
Would this break using bfd from C++?
Or building with pre-ISOC89 compilers? (Ouch! Don't hit me! ;-)
> Having `struct bfd' available will, I think, legitimize its use as an
> opaque declaration vis:
>
> struct bfd;
> void func (struct bfd *abfd);
And "bfd *" does not fit that purpose?
> Also, as far as I know, symbols with a leading `_' live in the system
> name space.
No, it's _ followed by upper-case letter, e.g "_Z".
brgds, H-P